Microsoft Flight Simulator

Resolution Scaling

The measured frame rates for Microsoft Flight Simulator with the AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 reveal a steep performance cliff as resolution climbs. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo produces 49.2 FPS, but dropping to 2560x1440 Low yields 38.8 FPS, and at 3840x2160 Low the average falls to 26.3 FPS. That represents a 47% reduction in frame rate from 1080p to 4K at the lowest settings tier, which indicates the GPU is the dominant limiting factor throughout this resolution range.

The pattern holds across all settings presets. At Medium settings, the frame rate goes from 39.8 FPS at 1080p down to 32.7 FPS at 1440p, then to 22.3 FPS at 4K. The High preset shows 27.5 FPS at 1080p, 22.1 FPS at 1440p, and 14.8 FPS at 4K. Ultra settings follow the same trajectory: 29.6 FPS at 1080p, 23.4 FPS at 1440p, and 15.9 FPS at 4K.

The scaling behavior suggests that the Ryzen 7 9800X3D's substantial compute resources are largely idle when paired with this GPU. The CPU's 8 cores and 16 threads, combined with a 96 MB shared L3 cache, would normally provide ample headroom for a flight simulator's simulation and scenery processing. However, the GTX 1650's 4 GB GDDR5 memory and 128-bit bus become the bottleneck, particularly at higher resolutions where pixel throughput demands increase exponentially.

Notably, the gap between Low and Ultra settings narrows as resolution increases. At 1080p, the difference between Low (49.2 FPS) and Ultra (29.6 FPS) is 19.6 FPS. At 4K, that spread compresses to 10.4 FPS (26.3 vs 15.9). This compression is a classic symptom of GPU-bound operation — when the renderer is saturated, settings tweaks have diminishing returns.

GPU Role

The GTX 1650 operates with a base clock of 1485 MHz and a boost clock of 1665 MHz, built on the TU117 chip using a 12 nm process. Its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory delivers 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth across a 128-bit interface. These specifications place the card at the 43rd percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 8713. The nearest rivals in that score range include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (8746, 0.4% higher), AMD Radeon 550X (8749, 0.4% higher), NVIDIA Quadro P2200 (8671, 0.5% lower), and AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (8761, 0.5% higher).

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU's limitations manifest clearly in the measured data. The game's rendering of terrain, weather, and aircraft models demands substantial fill rate and memory bandwidth. The GTX 1650's 53.28 GPixel/s pixel rate and 93.24 GTexel/s texture rate are simply insufficient for smooth 4K operation, as evidenced by the 14.8 FPS average at Ultra 4K settings. Even at 1080p Ultra, the card only manages 29.6 FPS, which falls short of what most users would consider playable for a simulator requiring precise control inputs.

The VRAM capacity is another concern. Flight simulators are known for streaming large texture sets, and 4 GB is tight for modern scenery packs. The 128-bit memory bus compounds this issue by limiting how quickly data can be swapped in and out. Benchmark results indicate that the GPU's DirectX 12 score of 35 (PassMark) and 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 305 reflect a card that struggles with modern API workloads.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested CPU-GPU combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator, this pairing ranks 1705 out of 1795 combos. That places it in the bottom 5% of all tested configurations, which is a striking result given the CPU's pedigree. The Ryzen 7 9800X3D sits at the 90th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 37780. Its nearest CPU rivals include the Intel Xeon 6353P (37811, 0.1% higher), Intel Core Ultra 5 225 (37831, 0.1% higher), Intel Core i9-13900HK (38020, 0.6% higher), and Intel Core i5-13600KF (38028, 0.7% higher).

The rank disparity between the CPU and the combo underscores how severely the GTX 1650 bottlenecks this system. A top-tier processor paired with an entry-level GPU from 2019 creates a lopsided configuration where the CPU's capabilities are effectively wasted in this title. The combo rank of 1705 reflects the GPU's 43rd percentile standing among all GPUs, which drags the overall system performance down despite the CPU's strength.

This ranking has practical implications. Users considering this combination for Microsoft Flight Simulator should expect frame rates that are primarily determined by the GPU's limits, not the CPU's potential. The data suggests that upgrading the GPU would yield far greater performance gains than any CPU change, since the 9800X3D is already operating well above the threshold needed to feed this graphics card.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the benchmark results show a clear tiering of performance across settings. Low settings deliver 49.2 FPS average, which is the only preset that approaches a playable threshold for a flight simulator. Medium settings drop to 39.8 FPS, High falls to 27.5 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 29.6 FPS. Interestingly, the Ultra preset outperforms High by 2.1 FPS at this resolution, which may indicate variance in the measured data or differences in how specific rendering paths are weighted.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates decline across the board. Low settings produce 38.8 FPS, Medium achieves 32.7 FPS, High manages 22.1 FPS, and Ultra reaches 23.4 FPS. The inversion between High and Ultra persists here, with Ultra beating High by 1.3 FPS. The 1440p results represent a 21% to 27% reduction compared to 1080p, depending on the settings preset.

At 3840x2160, the performance becomes marginal for interactive use. Low settings yield 26.3 FPS, Medium drops to 22.3 FPS, Ultra manages 15.9 FPS, and High falls to 14.8 FPS. The 4K numbers are consistently below 30 FPS, making this resolution impractical for this hardware combination in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The gap between Low and Ultra at 4K is 10.4 FPS, which is the smallest spread across all resolutions, further confirming the GPU-bound nature of the workload.

The data shows no minimum or maximum FPS values, so the analysis relies solely on average frame rates. The absence of frame time data means stutter and consistency cannot be assessed, but the average figures alone indicate that 1080p Low is the only configuration that provides a smooth enough experience for a simulator where precise control inputs matter.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution and settings combo for playable frame rates?

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 with Low settings delivers the highest average frame rate at 49.2 FPS. This is the only tested configuration that exceeds 40 FPS. At 1080p Medium, the average drops to 39.8 FPS, which may still be workable for some users, but anything above Medium at this resolution falls below 30 FPS.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 8713. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile scores 8746 (0.4% higher), AMD Radeon 550X scores 8749 (0.4% higher), NVIDIA Quadro P2200 scores 8671 (0.5% lower), and AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 scores 8761 (0.5% higher). These differences are negligible in practice.

Q: Is the Ryzen 7 9800X3D being fully utilized in this combo?

A: Benchmark results indicate the CPU is far more capable than the GPU. The 9800X3D scores 34004 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 4800 in single-core, placing it at the 90th percentile among all CPUs. The GPU's 43rd percentile standing means the graphics card limits overall system performance in this game.

Q: What explains the 4K performance being so low?

A: At 3840x2160, the highest average frame rate is 26.3 FPS at Low settings, dropping to 14.8 FPS at High. The GTX 1650's 4 GB GDDR5 memory with 128.1 GB/s bandwidth and 53.28 GPixel/s pixel rate cannot handle the pixel throughput demanded at 4K in a flight simulator with continuous scenery rendering.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested configurations?

A: This CPU-GPU combination ranks 1705 out of 1795 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 5% of all configurations, reflecting the significant mismatch between the high-end CPU and the entry-level GPU.

Q: Should users expect better performance at Ultra settings compared to High?

A: The measured data shows Ultra outperforming High at both 1080p (29.6 vs 27.5 FPS) and 1440p (23.4 vs 22.1 FPS). At 4K, High (14.8 FPS) is actually slower than Ultra (15.9 FPS). This unusual pattern likely reflects different rendering paths or measurement variance, but the differences are small enough to be within normal benchmark fluctuation.